EFF Weighs in on Proposed FCC Net Neutrality Rules

Today marks the deadline for the first round of comments to the FCC regarding its proposed "net neutrality" regulations. Here's a quick summary of what EFF had to say in its comments to the Commission:

While the question of how to best protect the openness of the Internet is a timely and important one, EFF believes the FCC currently lacks the statutory authority to issue the broad regulations on ISPs that it has proposed. The "ancillary jurisdiction" that the FCC has asserted as a basis for the regulations is legally insufficient and would, if accepted, give the FCC potentially unbounded power to regulate the Internet however it likes. In other words, if the FCC wants to issue net neutrality regulations, it needs to wait until Congress passes a net neutrality bill.

If the Commission nevertheless chooses to forge ahead with the regulations proposed, EFF urges it to make the following revisions designed to protect the free speech and privacy interests of Internet users, and to foster competition and innovation.

First, in order to protect the free speech interests of Internet users, the Commission should reject copyright enforcement as "reasonable network management." Copyright enforcement has nothing to do with the technical business of network management. Moreover, the proposed regulations, by their terms, already exclude "unlawful content," making any exception for copyright enforcement unnecessary. Should ISPs want to deploy copyright enforcement technologies that inflict collateral damage on lawful content, those ISPs should be required to submit any such technologies to the Commission for pre-deployment review as part of a transparent public waiver process.

Second, in order to protect the privacy interests of Internet users, the Commission should clarify that the law enforcement exception applies only to an ISP’s legal obligations to address the needs of law enforcement. Because the six proposed neutrality principles do not, by their terms, apply to unlawful content or activities, a general exception for law enforcement is unnecessary. Should ISPs want to voluntarily deploy technologies that would block lawful activity in the course of addressing the needs of law enforcement, those ISPs should be required to submit any such technologies to the Commission for pre-deployment review as part of a transparent, public waiver process.

Third, in order to protect the privacy interests of Internet users, the Commission should make it clear that its proposed regulations do not reach noncommercial providers of broadband Internet access service, whether they are individuals who operate open Wi-Fi networks at home, or public-minded entities that provide free Internet access in their local communities. The Commission should avoid the specter of federal regulation looming over noncommercial, public-spirited network providers. Federal regulation of these initiatives is not necessary to vindicate the openness, competition, innovation, and free expression goals of this proceeding.

Fourth, in order to foster competition and innovation, EFF urges the Commission to make it clear that the proposed "transparency" principle is not subject to an exception for "reasonable network management." As exemplified by the Commission’s ruling against Comcast regarding its discriminatory treatment of BitTorrent traffic, it is precisely when ISPs invoke the need for "reasonable network management" that the principle of transparency becomes most vital. Only if ISPs are required to adequately disclose their network management practices will consumers, competitors, innovators, and the Commission be able to evaluate whether the practices are, in fact, "reasonable."

Fifth, in order to foster competition and innovation, the Commission should require wireless ISPs to allow "tethering" as a form of device interconnection. This requirement is a necessary corollary to the principle that consumers should be entitled to use any lawful device or application that does not harm the network. Tethering facilitates interoperability, competition, and openness. Furthermore, tethering blocks some troubling practices that are already emerging in the marketplace.

Spanish version San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and more than 70 human and digital rights groups called on Mark Zuckerberg today to add real transparency and accountability to Facebook’s content removal process. Specifically, the groups demand that Facebook clearly explain how much content it removes, both rightly...

A coalition of civil rights and public interest groups issued recommendations today on policies they believe Internet intermediaries should adopt to try to address hate online. While there’s much of value in these recommendations, EFF does not and cannot support the full document. Because we deeply respect these...

The free and open Internet has enabled disparate communities to come together across miles and borders, and empowered marginalized communities to share stories, art, and information with one another and the broader public—but restrictive and often secretive or poorly messaged policies by corporate gatekeepers threaten to change that. Content policies...

President Donald Trump and his lawyers still believe he can block people on Twitter because he doesn’t like their views, so today we’ve filed a brief telling a court, again, that doing so violates the First Amendment. We’re hopeful that the court, like the last one that considered...

EFF is introducing a new Coders' Rights project to connect the work of security research with the fundamental rights of its practitioners throughout the Americas. The project seeks to support the right of free expression that lies at the heart of researchers' creations and use of computer code to...

Journalists face increasingly hostile conditions covering public protests, presidential rallies, corruption, and police brutality in the course of work as watchdogs over government power. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court threatens press freedoms even further by potentially giving the government freer rein to arrest media people in...

Brazil’s federal elections are set for October 7, 2018, but the fear that “fake news” online might unfairly interfere with the electoral process has been looming over the country for far longer than this year’s campaign. In June, the President of the Superior Electoral Court declared such interference ...

There’s a lot of talk these days about “content moderation.” Policymakers, some public interest groups, and even some users are clamoring for intermediaries to do “more,” to make the Internet more “civil,” though there are wildly divergent views on what that “more” should be. Others vigorously oppose such moderation, arguing...

A federal court considering a challenge to the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, or FOSTA, dismissed the case on Monday.EFF and partner law firms filed a lawsuit in June against the Justice Department on behalf of two human rights organizations, a...